Starbucks Statement on Gun Carry in their stores

[RamboLiberal]

Mar 03, 2010
Starbucks Position on Open Carry Gun Laws
SEATTLE, March 03, 2010 - We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions.

While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. In this case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have open carry weapon laws. Where these laws don’t exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the open carrying of weapons. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.

At the same time, we have a security protocol for any threatening situation that might occur in our stores. Partners are trained to call law enforcement as situations arise. We will continuously review our procedures to ensure the highest safety guidelines are in place and we will continue to work closely with law enforcement.

We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.

As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue. As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society. Our Starbucks family knows all too well the dangers that exist when guns are used irresponsibly and illegally. Without minimizing this unfortunate reality, we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.


http://starbucks.tekgroup.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=332

[Chulanowa]

1. They call employees "Partners"?

Okay, I know it's not the focus of the article, but... Really?

[Callisto32]

65. They probably get a tiny cut of the profit as a bonus at certain times.

Theoretically, this provides some ownership interest, however small.

Though I agree that it is probably the wrong word. "Associate" would probably be more accurate.

[krispos42]

99. My brother works for them

He gets profit-sharing in the form of company stock, I believe.

[57_TomCat]

2. Good for them

My opinion to them (via Email)was in favor of honoring local law. That is the position that makes the most sense. :)

[wtmusic]

3. Asking armed customers to leave the store would be potentially unsafe? nt

[xchrom]

5. Indeed -- you never know what a day will bring or any one cutomer.

Starbucks won't have my biz.

[cowman]

11. Starbucks

will definitly continue getting my business and good for them for sticking to their guns, no pun intended, and not caving to the Brady Bunch

[Chulanowa]

73. Asking ANY customer to leave is potentially unsafe

They tend to get very indignant about the fact that you're asking them to vacate the premises, after all. And if that irate dude has a gun on his hip, well, you never really know, do you?

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Take that VPC and Brady. Love it.

Here is the heart of the matter: "Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores,..."

Throw out a peaceful paying customer? Why? Starbucks is there to make money, not social policy.

Of course, in refraining from making social policy, they are making social policy, but that is a different discussion.

This is an excellent demonstration of the weakness of the gun-control advocates.

[Pullo]

7. In contrast, Obama signed a law that legalized carrying in national parks

in accordance to state law, that is.

The fact that Starbucks has dismissed the Brady's dog and pony show this long just goes to show how impotent they have become. Their insistence on preaching BS for decades has had disastrous repercussions for them, it seems.

[X_Digger]

6. Good for starbucks! n/t

[wtmusic]

8. Coming next...gonna hang a target for practice

or just throw frappucino bottles up in the air. Yee-haw!

[Abq_Sarah]

10. Uh-huh

Because that happens every single day in open carry states. :eyes:

[cowman]

13. Yeah just

keep repeating the VPV/Brady Bunch talking points. Works really well huh? Emotion based statements are really getting you anti-2nd amend bunch really far, NOT

[spin]

17. In your fantasies maybe, doesn't happen in real life. (n/t)

[wtmusic]

22. It's my constitutional right

It's pretty obvious A2 implies I can shoot frap bottles in Starbucks, and heaven help anyone who gets in my way.

[rrneck]

26. You don't appear

to learning much from all that sarcasm practice. Maybe it's just not your thing.

[wtmusic]

36. I'm not appear to learning sarcasm?

My thing is protecting my rights, baby. Screw the police, the legislature, the middlemen - I answer to the Constitution.

Me and "C", we got an understanding. :thumbsup:

[rrneck]

38. Thanks for the proofread. The Constitution is worthless

without all those police, legislators and other "middlemen". And all of them are as worthless as your rights if you are attacked. Do you have a way for someone to defend themselves if they are assaulted and there are no firearms involved?

[wtmusic]

39. I'm simply not afraid of being attacked.

You don't understand. To need a gun to defend yourself, you need to fear being attacked.

I don't have that fear.

[armueller2001]

40. Do you have the fear of

getting in an automobile accident? How about having a home fire?

To need a seat belt or fire extinguisher, you need to fear bad things happening.

[wtmusic]

43. Nope, fear never enters the equation.

Preparing for what life throws our way based on actual risk is wise.

What are the chances of you getting into a car accident tomorrow vs. getting robbed? Care to venture a guess?

I guess if I lived in DC and had to go out a lot at night I would consider it. It would be easier to move away.

[armueller2001]

44. I'm sure that the women who get raped

or the people who get beaten to death walking down the street would really take comfort in knowing that the chances of that happening were really slim, and they were just the unlucky ones.

Quickly searching the net, I found that the Dallas TX house fire injury rate was 5.2 per 100,000.

On a nationwide level, the violent crime rate is 455 per 100,000.

Why keep a fire extinguisher in your home? Comparatively, it's no risk to being victim of a violent crime.

sorry I don't have time to find fire data on the country as a whole.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/344/25/1911
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

[wtmusic]

46. I'm not expecting them to take comfort

and I'll bet you buy lottery tickets.

[armueller2001]

49. Nope.

Waste of money. I'd rather invest that money in something that will generate money at a reasonable rate of return.

"I'm not expecting them to take comfort"

Hah. Nice. Fuck 'em right? As long as you don't have to be scared by those big bad scary guns, what's it matter?

[Statistical]

61. Not even in the same magntidue of likelihood.

455 incidents per 100,000 persons is per year.

So roughly 0.5% of people are involved in a violent crime each year.


In a lifetime (say age 18-68) the likelihood of not being involved in a violent crime is 0.995^50 = 78%.

So likelihood of being involved in a violent crime is 22% or roughly 1 in 5.

If I had a 1 in 5 chance of winning the lottery I would take those odds also.

[paulsby]

63. what is your chance of your house burning down?

very very very small

just like your chances of encountering an a person intent on applying serious injury or deadly force towards you.

in either case, you can be prepared.

in the former, buy fire insurance

in th elatter, carry a gun


hth

[rrneck]

45. Good for you. Now,

do you have a solution for others who may or may not have a fear of assault? A lot of people get robbed, raped and murdered whether they anticipate it or not. Do you have a solution for them?

[wtmusic]

47. Well after the fact a gun wouldn't do them much good, would it?

:D

Here's a solution: get a table of statistics and figure out what the biggest threats to your life. Then prepare for them, them one by one, going from most dangerous to least.

You can get pretty damn far down the list before you need a gun.

I think it's pretty humorous that most people would go out and buy a 9mm before they'd lose 20 lbs.

[rrneck]

53. Who said

anything about a gun? What solution do you offer to defend against assault from an individual using a knife, club, fists or feet?

[TPaine7]

48. Do you actually believe that? Really?

To need a gun to defend yourself, you need to fear being attacked.

Here, let me fix that:

To need a gun to defend yourself, you need to be attacked in a way that justifies deadly force or the threat of deadly force.

Isn't that last sentence better?

[wtmusic]

50. Yes, it is better.

I guess my point is that you don't really need one at all.

[armueller2001]

51. Right... you don't need one

until you need one. But when you need it, it'd sure be nice to have it!

[TPaine7]

52. Just like a seatbelt or a fire extinguisher? n/t

[paulsby]

64. need canard

again

yawn

[Callisto32]

66. All I NEED is air, water, food and heat.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. My wife is alive because she had a gun when she needed one. N/T

[PavePusher]

57. Sure I fear being attacked.

Who wouldn't?

But I do not generally expect it, even though I take some precautions against it.

You seem to be equating 'fear' and 'expectation', which are very different things.

[paulsby]

62. false. perfect example of TWO canards. "fear" and "need"

i don't NEED to know CPR. i WANT to know it so i can help people
i'm not afraid of encountering a person in cardiac arrest. i'm PREPARED

i don't NEED a gun to defend myself. i CHOOSE to carry one (sometimes).

i am not in fear of having to use a gun any more than i am in fear of my house burning down

yet, i CHOOSE to have fire insurance and a gun

choice. it's what;s for dinner

fear?

nope

need?

nope

hth

[Euromutt]

120. Then surely you don't need to fear people legally carrying in Starbucks

As you put it in post #43, "preparing for what life throws our way based on actual risk is wise."

The actual risk of a legal carrier deciding to start blasting away at Frappucino bottles with zero regard for the safety of other customers is negligible. The chance of it happening in any Starbucks where you happen to be at the time is even smaller.

So what are you worried about?

[doc03]

9. Good for Starbucks, I nearly always have my CCW at

Starbucks, I was there today. As far as open carry, I think any robber would have second thoughts if they intended to rob the store.

[damntexdem]

12. They have a right to prohibit firearms in their stores: and should do so.

And they would if they really cared about their customers.

[cowman]

14. Apparently they

do care about their customers. Just what the hell do you think is going to happen? Shootouts in their stores"? Oh wait, it hasn't happened yet and don't give me the crap that it will, people who open carry are law abiding citizens but I'll just bet your hoping it happens so you can say "see I told you so"

[Chulanowa]

74. Well, when a teacher blows away her co-workers at a meeting...

A Starbucks shootout doesn't seem THAT far-fetched. it could happen. it seems Starbucks is better on it not happening, which is fine, I figure.

But you're using two myths here.
1) Gun violence never happens
and
2) Everyone packing a gun is doing so legally

You know better than that on both counts

[cowman]

76. If a gunman

enters a Starbucks or for that matter any place where law abiding citizens are openly armed they will almost certainly turn around and walk out and go find a gun free zone, unless of course the perp has a death wish

[Chulanowa]

78. Rambo complex

Keep racking 'em up, man. You're on a roll.

[cowman]

82. Rambo Complex?

is that all ya got? Typical gun grabber rhetoric, fall back on insults. Are you pissed because the RKBA issue is over and your side lost?

[Chulanowa]

91. I'm a gun grabber?

Is that all ya got? Typical nugentian rhetoric, assume anyone who doesn't join in your frothing is a gun-grabber and has a shrine to the Brady Bill.

I've had to explain this to many others before you, and since people in this forum seem to see the world in black and white absolutes, I'll explain it many times after you, I'm sure. I don't give a good goddamn if you have a gun. I don't care if you want to carry it. I don't care if you want to conceal it, in any of your fine assortment of holsters for all dress occasions. Go for it. It's your right to do so. No, really, load up. Lug a gatling gun around on the back of your truck. Carry a zip gun and your assortment of handmade knives each engraved with the name of an ex-girlfriend, whatever the shit you wanna do, I really don't care. You have a right to have weapons, by all means, go hog wild.

However, you should have no expectation that I would respect you as a person, take your discourse seriously, or regard you as anything other than a clown. Do you understand this, cowman? You can have all the guns you want. I am simply under no obligation to treat you as anything other than the buffoon you look like to me. That's my right.

So now you're up to four myths!

1) Gun violence is nonexistent
2) Only people who legally carry do so
3) Guns prevent crime
4) Anyone who disagrees with gun mythology is a "gun grabber"

Keep it up man, you're on a roll. Oh! For your next one, tell me that you own your gun exclusively because you enjoy shooting competitions. I love that story.

[PavePusher]

97. "I don't give a good goddamn if you have a gun."

Obviously untrue, by the tone of your rant....

[Chulanowa]

102. Nope, just tired of explaining it

You would think that if a person makes no arguments whatsoever for "gun grabbing" that the person probably isn't in that category. Apparently "thinking" is a four-letter word in some neighborhoods.

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. I believe the teacher you're referring to had previously shot her brother

and had gotten away with it due to her mother's political pull. You might want to use another example.

[Chulanowa]

89. Not really

My point is crazy people do crazy shit in the most unlikely of places.

What did you think my point was?

[oneshooter]

121. If I remember correctly

The teacher violated both school and state law by possesing a firearm on campus. A fat lot of good those laws did!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[friendly_iconoclast]

123. In the 1986 incident, she had also tried to carjack at gunpoint...

...which also got 'forgotten' thanks to Mom's political pull.

[Pullo]

15. "Oh noes!!! Blood in the streets .... err ..... coffee houses!!!"

I'll give this to the Brady's. They are a green organization. They love to recycle the same tired, worn out arguments over and over again, after all.

[spin]

16. Starbucks is probably the SAFEST place to enjoy coffee...

in a town where concealed or open carry is allowed.

If I were a criminal, I would go elsewhere to rob.

[onehandle]

23. If you were carrying concealed in a Starbucks and someone started robbing it what would you do?

Seriously. Here's the situation.

You are in a Starbucks. At this time of day there are few customers and employees. Let's say two behind the counter and four customers sitting at tables with their laptops or books. You are one of the customers. A man comes in, walks up the counter and tells the cashier to fill a bag with cash. Before anyone even notices, he pulls a gun out and says, 'Nobody move, I just want the cash from the register and I'm outta here.'

You have a gun. What do you do?

[oneshooter]

27. Let him.

Unless he fires a shot, or tries to herd everybody into the back. Be observant. If he endangers nobody then he may go in peace. If he strikes, or directly threatens a person, then I will engage him. And win.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[onehandle]

28. Thanks Rambo, but I wasn't talking to you. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

30. That public forum thing kinda sucks doesn't it? Oh wait, you weren't talking to me?

never mind.

[wtmusic]

37. You would "engage" him before or after you wet your pants?

Doncha think robbing is endangering someone? Might want to think this one through ahead of time, sheriff.

[cowman]

77. Wet my pants?

Hey genius, you ever been under fire? I have and I sure as hell don't remember "wetting my Pants". Don't judge other people by what you would do.

[benEzra]

29. Hang back, observe and report, possibly dial 911 if I can do so unobserved...

and be ready to take action if he starts shooting or tries to line us up or herd us into the freezer, or if he seems to be building up to such an action.

But the primary reason for carrying a gun at Starbucks is that you want to have a gun with you at some other point throughout the day or evening, and haven't yet developed the ability to quantum teleport your gun into and out of existence at will. Just like you might carry an umbrella into Starbucks even though you don't consider it likely to rain inside the restaurant.

[Hoopla Phil]

32. Shhhh, that post was not for you. lol

[Abq_Sarah]

31. It depends

Those situations aren't as cut and dried as you might want to portray them. My reaction would depend on a lot of different factors that can't be decided in a hypothetical situation.

[Hoopla Phil]

33. Didn't you get the memo? That was not for you to respond to.

[armueller2001]

41. What would I do?

Shoot center mass until the threat is nonexistant. He's threatening the life of an employee with a deadly weapon.

I don't know how anyone could live with themselves having the means to stop someone else getting killed and not preventing that.

[armueller2001]

42. What would I do?

Shoot center mass until the threat is nonexistant. He's threatening the life of an employee with a deadly weapon.

I don't know how anyone could live with themselves having the means to stop someone else getting killed and not preventing that.

[spin]

54. You observe ...

the situation and memorize details such as height, weight and clothing and distinguishing features of the robber to help the police after the robbery.

You wouldn't take any action unless the situation turned violent. I wouldn't play hero, draw my weapon and yell. "Freeze, MF" because that might escalate the situation. I am not a cop.

This is basic martial arts training. If a person walks up to you draws a firearm or a knife and demands your money, you study the person and if he looks sane and appears to only want your wallet, you give it to him. You can replace your wallet, driver's license and credit cards. You can't replace your life.

However, if you seriously believe that the man intends to harm you, or if he is not satisfied with your handing over your wallet, then you use your martial arts skills to attempt to disarm him. It's risky, but if he is close enough and you have practiced and perfected the necessary techniques it can be done. If the attacker plans to kill you anyway, you have nothing to lose.

The reason that I said that you would be safer in a Starbucks is that Starbucks has made the news recently and there is an excellent chance that the bad guys know that there are possibly armed people inside. They will probably decide to go down the street and rob a Subway sandwich shop.

I was living in the Town and Country area of Tampa when this incident happened. I used to frequently visit this shop.

Hayes told jurors about the December night in 2004 when two masked men walked into the Subway sandwich shop in Town ‘N Country where she worked with Danielle Miller, 22.

When the robbery was over, Hayes, 40, required surgery for her injuries. Miller was dead.

Hayes testified that she was sitting at a table in the restaurant and Miller was behind the counter. When the gunmen walked in, one wearing a bandana over his face and the other with a hood pulled down tight, Hayes thought it was a joke.

“He came up to me, showing me the gun,” Hayes said. “I had this blank look in my eyes.”

The man with the bandana began to yell to his partner that she didn’t believe it was a real robbery. Then, Hayes noticed Miller shaking and scared at the cash register. The gunman with the hood over his face – whom prosecutors said was Austin – was yelling at Miller because she could not manage to open the register.

“All I can remember him saying was ‘Girl you’re too slow. You gots to die,’ “ Hayes said.

Hayes told the gunman in front of her that she was going to walk to the register to calm Miller. To get behind the counter, Hayes had to walk through the back room. While in the back, out of view from the register, she heard a gunshot; then two more.

Hayes walked out and saw the hooded man throw Miller to the ground.

“I turned around and tried to hit him so he would stop shooting her,” Hayes said. “When I hit him, he grabbed me and he shot me.”

With a bullet in her stomach, Hayes said she opened the register. The two men grabbed some money and ran out of the store, dropping cash along the way.

“As they ran out, I saw one try to shoot me again,” Hayes said. “The gun malfunctioned. I just heard a click.”

***snip***

Alexander said, when the robbery was over, he asked Austin why he killed Miller. Austin cursed, Alexander testified, and said she was taking too long.

http://www.tboblogs.com/index.php/newswire/story/subawy-murder-trial-starts/

[onehandle]

69. Thanks. You provided the most sensible answer.

As I expected.

I agree with your action strategy.

However, I disagree that this publicity makes Starbucks safer. People pick places to rob based on circumstance. This could be anything from location, time of day, number of customers, amount of cash on hand, ...just about anything.

I doubt that even a small amount of robbers are keeping up with this issue through their RSS feed.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chulanowa]

75. Odd vibe here, man

"They will probably go rob a subway shop"

Followed by hte story of two people getting shot in Subway.

Moral of the story? it's your fault you got blown away, shame on you for not having guns in your store"

Typical gungeon, I suppose, but still disgusting.

[spin]

80. I didn't mean that as the moral ...

but now that you suggest it, I might mention that the individuals who committed the crime waited until there were no customers. There is a possibility that they realized that concealed carry is legal in Florida and that they might just encounter someone who was carrying and might fight back.

When I went to that Subway, I always was armed. Did I expect problems? No. However, there had been other incidents in the same area of West Hillsborough Ave where clerks had been killed by robbers. One was just around the block from where I lived at a Shell gas station. (The Subway was one mile from where I lived.)

Now let me add that if I worked at that Subway, I would have carried concealed despite whatever policies Subway has. Obviously, that would have been my secret. But I wouldn't expect two women working at a Subway to be carrying and the robbers didn't either.

Between the Subway and the gas station was a Farm Store. My daughter stopped by late one night to pick up some milk. The female clerk was wearing a light jacket but my daughter noticed she had a revolver in a shoulder holster under the jacket. When she commented on it, the clerk told her it was a .44 magnum. I doubt that it was, but my daughter said that it was a large frame revolver with grips similar to her S&W Model 25-2 revolver.

Just a little further than the Subway was a book and newspaper store in a plaza that I loved to stop at. The owner carried a S&W snub nosed revolver openly in a belt holster. I don't believe he was ever robbed.

Had one of the clerks in the Subway had access to a firearm, the situation might have ended differently. I don't blame Subway or the clerks by any means. Just saying.

I am, however, disgusted by the fact that the clerk lost her life.

[Chulanowa]

85. Alright, my apology

I'm a little quick to the draw (pun absolutely intended) when it comes to this stuff.

I still don't buy the "If everyone is armed, there will be no crime!" argument due to it being completely ahistorical.

[spin]

86. I don't buy that either ...

Only honest people who are responsible enough to know their own limitations and are willing to learn gun safety and proficiency with their firearms should be allowed to own firearms in my perfect world.

Guns are not for everybody. If you abuse alcohol or drugs, have serious mental issues, have anger management problems or live in a volatile relationship with a significant other then firearms are not for you. If you just want to own a firearm and believe that its mere presence in your house will protect you, then firearms are not for you.

As the famous firearms guru, Jeff Cooper said,

“Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.”

[PavePusher]

87. I have to ask, who is making that claim?

Can you actually reference a source for it?

[Chulanowa]

88. Right here

"There is a possibility that they realized that concealed carry is legal in Florida and that they might just encounter someone who was carrying and might fight back."

"If a gunman enters a Starbucks or for that matter any place where law abiding citizens are openly armed they will almost certainly turn around and walk out and go find a gun free zone, unless of course the perp has a death wish"

I can dig through the forums for other examples if you like.

The message is pretty clear; Guns prevent crime.

[PavePusher]

92. "almost certainly", "might fight back".

Hmm, pretty definite terms there. Or something.

No-one is claiming that having a firearm is some magic talisman that will stop or prevent crime. We are saying it's another tool in the box, and we won't let you take tools, or choices, away from us. Also, that criminals aren't usually willing to die for money. Some crazies are willing to die to cause mayhem, but they are, thankfully a very small minority of criminals.

[Chulanowa]

103. You must be new here

:wave:

Sorry Pave. The gun as magic talisman is pretty much the motivating force behind this forum. I'd suggest digging through a few threads. You'll see the pattern. Matter of fact if you approach it thoughtfully, you'll see lots of crazy fucking myths about your glorified hammers. It's really wacky. The seer amount of double standards and hypocrisy is pretty amusing, too. I think it'll only take you four well-populated threads before you see why the claim, "antis can only make emotional appeals!" cracks me the fuck up every time.

Go ahead. The gungeon is full of unintended humor. It's like the Moran guy is playing the telephone game with his whole trailer park, pure hilarity.

[PavePusher]

109. "You must be new here"

ROFL... :rofl:

[Chulanowa]

111. Either that or you don't pay much attention

But thanks for your well-argued reply.

[mvccd1000]

100. The message is pretty clear...

In all fairness, I do have to agree that I often see that argument used by people in favor of CCW. ("The criminals won't know who's armed, so they won't commit the crime.") I personally disagree with that argument... if they don't know anyone is armed, there's no deterrent to committing a crime.

Personally, I carry openly when I choose to carry outside the home, for two reasons:

#1) I'm generally a well-dressed, clean-cut appearing person. I don't think I look terribly crazy, so it's my hope that normal people (you know, not the rabid anti-gunners who can't be convinced, but just your everyday Joe who doesn't give the issue much thought) will see me and realize that I'm not going to shoot someone over a parking place (or whatever other stupid arguments generally get brought up by the brady bunch).

#2) If I need to stop at an ATM or a convenience store, or walk through a parking lot at night, I believe that anyone considering a robbery is probably more likely to look for an unarmed target before they will consider me. I'd much rather simply deter a potential crime than haul out my concealed weapon and get a chance to start blasting.

Those are my own personal beliefs, and aren't meant to sway anyone toward my views. They're simply some of the reasons I carry the way I do.

[Katya Mullethov]

55. Staple his lower jaw into his his soft palate

With the full length of my V42 , then toss a smoke grenade to cover my egress .

[Chulanowa]

79. I wish I could tell if you were joking

I mean... i'm laughing, so i think it's a joke, but this IS the gungeon, so you might be totally serious.

[Katya Mullethov]

106. The humor comes in knowing

that you cant carry a V42 dagger around without the risk of running afoul of the local constabulary . Pretty much the only thing the war on "them" has left us for self defense are firearms .

[PavePusher]

59. Lots of situational variables...

that would have to be addressed.

How long do you have to play "what if..." games?

[Callisto32]

68. Let him rob the place, until people start getting hurt, or are extremly likely to be hurt.

The last part is, admittedly, a judgment call and would require an analysis of the totality of the circumstances. If those circumstances were beyond my ability to deal with, who knows. Maybe I would just cower and hope for the best. BUT, once people start getting hurt, all bets are off. You shoot back. Simple. Well, not simple. There are a lot of factors to consider. That is why people who carry often train mentally and physically for a use of force situation. You know, just like the police that are ALWAYS exempted from the "guns 'r bad, mmmm'kay" rules.

That is the best I can do based upon your partial scenario presented. What happens next? That determines the appropriate response. At this point, just let him rob the place.

Anyway...

As is par for the course, you ignored the point of the post to which you responded. The point is that if the seedy types know that they are likely to encounter armed resistance to violent acts in a certain place, they will go elsewhere. Higher predators exhibit this behavior often, like when lions go after the sick and infirm specimens.

[GreenStormCloud]

71. Shoot him in the brain with no warning to him.

Usually the customers will be spread out at different tables. The robber will have to keep his attention moving. Due to the adrenalin rush he will have tunnel vision, and his primary focus will be on the registar. When he looks at it, draw and shoot him in the brain.

Starbucks usually are fairly small so from anywhere in the place I would be close enough to make a brain shot an easy shot. Fire several shots rapidly at the same target.

[DissedByBush]

90. First, decide when to shoot

Looking at the entirety of the situation and the likelihood he'll shoot, I'd establish what kind of action he'd have to take before I would intervene.

Thus if he doesn't do it he walks out.

If he does do it I'm already mentally prepared to draw and shoot, so I don't waste time with that decision later when I need to be shooting.

[-..__...]

18. No one here is saying...

that they don't have a right to prohibit firearms from their stores.

As a business, they can prohibit/ban pretty much anything they like.

Likewise... as a business they can also allow pretty much anything (as long as it's legal, which BTW is Starbucks position on the issue), they like.

Unfortunately though, the Brady's seem to think that Starbucks should run it's business according to Bradys rules... not Starbucks rules.

[cowman]

20. The Brady Bunch

are becoming so inconsequential that they are desperate to keep themselves in the limelight they will go after a private business and that business basically told them to go fuck themselves

[rrneck]

19. No corporation cares about its customers,

it cares about the money in their pockets.

[Abq_Sarah]

24. Perhaps they care

About and respect the rights of all their customers.

[PavePusher]

58. Been a lot of shootings at Starbucks...

by otherwise law-abiding, peaceful Citizens?

Got evidence?

[Callisto32]

67. If they REALLY cared.

They would feel exactly like you do.

False dichotomy. You lose.

[onehandle]

21. Pretty dumb. The people who are flaunting guns in public don't pay 2-5 dollars for a beverage.

They get their 79 cent coffee at the local quickie mart.

I think they are just not taking a stand so that these men stop hanging out at the local Starbucks and go back to the gas station.

Wait... Pretty smart!

Well played, Starbucks!

[Abq_Sarah]

25. Flaunting?

Why is it when someone carries a firearm in the open, they are flaunting? It's not like they're walking into Starbucks with a revolver on each hip and a bandolier across their chest.

[Hoopla Phil]

34. So, do police officer "flaunt" their side arm?

[benEzra]

35. The Brady Campaign is trying to get Starbucks to ban licensed concealed carry...

using open-carry merely as a media hook. Look at what Helmke et al are trying to pressure Starbucks to actually do---hint, the BC isn't trying to get them to require lawfully carried firearms to be concealed, they are trying to get them to ban lawfully carried firearms from the premises in every state.

A thousand times as many people carry concealed, legally, nationwide in Starbucks and other venues as carry openly, and THAT is what the Brady Campaign has been trying for years to shut down. This is just the latest episode in their ongoing anti-CHL jihad.

[Bold Lib]

81. Nice catch there. I remember in Texas after the CHL law went

into affect. Many put up the signs saying no guns, but they came down pretty quick. Wal Mart put up a sign that i really liked though. It said something to the affect that the UNlawfull carrying of firearms on their premises was prohibited.

Isn't that what we can ALL agree on. The UNlawful carrying of firearms needs to be stopped. Too bad the criminals do not care about committing crimes.. . .

[X_Digger]

83. You'll see that sign (unlawful carry) at places that sell alcohol..

Convenience stores, etc. It's required for them.

Has no bearing on TX CHL holders.

[benEzra]

93. Exactly. (n/t)

[GreenStormCloud]

96. I think that is the store trying to have it both ways.

To most folks who don't really read it and don't know the law, the sign appears to be saying, "No guns". So they feel like they are in a gun-free place, and that criminals will notice the sign and stay out.

CHL holders notice the sign but because we have had the classes and have the license we know that we can legally carry inside the store. I always do.

I also usually ignore "No guns allowed" signs. Exceptions are when I go to the doctor, as I would not be able to conceal. Otherwise, if my guns can stay concealed, they stay on me.

Texas 30.06 signs I respect. That is a felony to violate one of them. But they are really rare.

[Chulanowa]

104. You're hte kind of guy who sees a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign...

And walks in with no pants, aren't you?

Funny how "My gun trumps your rights to property" is readily seized by "legals" and "criminals" alike, huh?

[GreenStormCloud]

105. Now that's funny.

I may disagree with you but I appreciate a funny answer.

My gun doesn't trump your property rights. As the owner of the place, you have the right to forbid guns. In Texas, you have the option of four levels.

1. None. You don't put up any signs.

2. Basically none. You put up the "No illegal guns" sign. Since my gun is legal, I can ignore your sign. Criminals will ignore it anyway. Uneducated innocents will think it means gun-free-zone.

3. Put up a "No guns" sign. It means that if you see someone with a gun, they are trespassing and you can ask them to leave. If they don't, then you can call the police and have them evicted and given a criminal tresspass warning. They won't be arrested unless then still refuse to leave. Since I carry concealed, I ignore those signs. I have never had a problem.

4. 30.06 sign. No, that doesn't refer to the caliber. It is the number of Texas code on no-guns signs. We have a specific signage law. For carrying a gun in your place to be a illegal, the sign has to meet some very specific requirement. Put up one of those signs and it becomes a felony for me to take a gun onto your place. I respect those signs and don't go in, or if I have to go in, I disarm first. Those signs are very rare.

If you don't own the place, but are just so customer who wants all the other customers to be disarmed, then you do not have that right.

[oneshooter]

107. Don't forget the 51% sign. Crossing that is the same as a 30.06. n/t

[Chulanowa]

110. I agree with your last sentence

but I do think it's just rather dickish that you see a "No guns" sign and just assume that you can flip the owner the bird. "He doesn't see it" could be an argument for taking a leak in the back corner of his store, too.

it counts as trespassing? I thought in Texas, trespassers were shot and the property owner got awarded a medal by the police: ;)

[oneshooter]

112. Don't think much, do you. n/t

[Chulanowa]

119. I sure do.

In fact I can think enough to come up with a second line! What's your excuse?

[oneshooter]

122. No you really don't think much at all.

"I thought in Texas, trespassers were shot and the property owner got awarded a medal by the police"

Typical BS from someone who has no knowledge of and has never visited Texas.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Chulanowa]

124. ...Right

Because as you can tell my the ";)" I was, indeed, being completely serious, amirite?

[Statistical]

113. It is only tresspassing if you are asked to leave and don't.

That applies to any reason on any private property regardless of if firearms are involved or not.

IT isn't flipping the bird. Texas code has a specific sign. If that specific sign is put up you can not legally carry onto that property. Stores that want to prohibit firearms should simply put up a 30.06 sign.

[X_Digger]

114. Those that don't want guns actually do..

A local manager of a chain restaurant is a friend of mine. He explained about 30.06, and the owner had him put up a gunbusters sign. He figured it covered his backside but allowed those legally carrying in without creating a ruckus.

I've seen exactly one 30.06 sign since I started looking for them over a year ago- at Baylor.

[Statistical]

115. Exactlly.

Stores don't want to put up a 30.06 sign because they will lose business.

On the other hand they like the do nothing "no illegal gunzzzz" signs because it shuts up the antis.

[oneshooter]

116. And if they are a restaurant

that makes 51% of their sales in alchohol then they are required to post a 51%sign at the front door. If they do not meet this level, and post the sign anyway, the TABC will "ask" them to take it down.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Statistical]

117. I hope VA eventually gets a statute similar to TX 30.06

Some have been proposed but none have gotten out of committee though.

Unless the Gov vetoes it we will get restaurant carry which is a plus.

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. The sign you posit is somewhat of a scam, frankly.

It's only tresspassing *if* a 30.06 or "51%" is posted.

Just a sign that says "no guns" is not legally valid, and as others have noted, was probably put up to quiet people
who don't like guns. So if you're in Texas, see a non-conforming sign and think it actually bans guns, you're being played, to put it bluntly.

The antis think it bans guns, the legal gun carriers know better, and the criminals won't give a shit either way.

[armueller2001]

101. Those signs that say something like

"unlawful carrying of firearms prohibited" or "criminal activity prohibited" are pretty fucking funny. As if unlawful carrying of firearms or criminal activity is allowed somewhere else.

Damn, I was going to rape a chick right here but that sign reminded me that criminal activity is prohibited. Son of a bitch!

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

60. Yeah, I'm sure you know a *lot* of open carriers

..and are intimately familiar with their tastes in caffeinated beverages, in every part of the country.

[old mark]

94. Interesting. Now if they only had better coffee, like Duncan Donuts. nt

[oneshooter]

108. AND better donuts!!! n/t

[Euromutt]

95. The response in the open carry community has been thoughtful

I was skimming some threads on the open carry forum, and the response to the Starbucks announcement has been enthusiastic, but in a thoughtful and measured way. Because Starbucks said that they don't want the open carry debate fought out in their stores, the general consensus was not to hold any mass gatherings at Starbucks locations ("let's respect their wishes, and not abuse their hospitality" is a good paraphrasal of the general tenor) while at the same time giving them as much business as possible on an individual basis, or in small (3-5 people) groups.

I include this as an illustration of the fact that the members of the open carry movement are not some bunch of goons looking to intimidate as many people as they can at every opportunity, and believe that their own viewpoint trumps everybody else's.

[PavePusher]

98. Thank you , Sir! n/t

[SimonPhoenix]

125. "Where these laws don’t exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the open carrying of weapons."

Huh? Someone please explain this to me. If the laws don't exist in some areas, how can a non-existent law be complied with?

[X_Digger]

126. worded poorly..

But the context is the previous sentence- "In this case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have open carry weapon laws. "

So they're saying they comply with the laws of their respective states.

[Euromutt]

127. I think you understand, but the statement is based on an incorrect premise

Namely that that a particular activity--in this case open carry--requires a law to explicitly state it's legal before you can do it. In the quoted sentence, the first "laws" refers to "open carry laws" in the previous sentence in the statement, which exist in most states, but obviously not in the states that prohibit open carry, using different laws.